Thursday, September 8, 2016

On Wednesday, The Washington Post
published an article saying the White House is at its wits' end, and has issued
the Kremlin an ultimatum on Syrian peace. The paper noted that the Obama
administration "expects a decision from Moscow in the next several
days." The question now is whether the Kremlin will allow itself to be
bullied into agreement.

The Washington
Post piece, written in a tone more reminiscent of a teacher scolding a
misbehaving student than a report on the results of Russian-US negotiations
over Syria, explained that "a final proposal" on a ceasefire and a
possible joint counterterrorism operation was given to Russian officials on Monday
during a meeting between President Putin and President Obama in China.

The paper went on to cite Obama deputy national security advisor
Benjamin Rhodes, who emphasized on Tuesday that Washington is "not going
to take a deal that doesn't meet our basic objectives."

Following Monday's meeting between the Russian and US presidents,
Russia's Foreign Ministry announced that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would
speak with Secretary of State John Kerry in Geneva later this week. But the
State Department didn't confirm this meeting and in doing so, "made clear
that they saw no purpose in yet another negotiating session if Russia has not
changed its position," The Washington Post explained. Nevertheless, Lavrov
and Kerry did end up speaking on Thursday, albeit by telephone.

What is Washington's Syrian peace
offer? According to The Washington Post, "the proposal calls for a
cease-fire in civil war fighting throughout the country, including in and
around the besieged city of Aleppo, and the safe, sustained delivery of humanitarian
assistance." Then, "once the truce is in place for a specified time
period, the Syrian Air Force is to be officially grounded." After that,
"the United States and Russia are to initiate a joint air campaign against
counterterrorism targets."

The "outlines of the deal were agreed two weeks ago," the
paper added, "but US officials have [since] accused Russia of backtracking
on some elements, including the timing and duration of a ceasefire before other
aspects of the agreement begin."

Emphasizing the drama and urgency
of the ceasefire deal, what Washington and US media doesn't seem to realize is
that Moscow's partner in Syria is Damascus. And getting the Syrian government
to agree to halt its military campaign against 'moderate rebels' that they
consider terrorists is easier said than done. Syrian President Bashar Assad has
been very clear that in his government's view, those who take up arms against
the state are not opposition, but terrorists; this, he emphasized, is a
definition that holds true around the world, and not just in Syria.

In the meantime, the so-called moderate rebels, if they exist, are
intertwined and collaborating with Islamist groups supported by Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and the Gulf States, making it very difficult to 'separate flies from
cutlets'. This, incidentally, is a problem The Washington Post itself admitted.

Finally, with Syrian government forces recently closing the ring around
areas of Aleppo under militant control, it may be difficult for Moscow to
convince Damascus on the need to halt its operations in a situation where the
Syrian Army can almost taste victory in the country's second city, which would
doubtlessly help bring the war to its resolution.

The US has been particularly concerned by developments in Aleppo. Last
week, State Department special envoy for Syria Michael Ratney laid out a series
of very specific steps on a ceasefire, complete with the requirement that
government forces withdraw their heavy equipment from the area around Castello
Road, the Aleppo militants' main supply lifeline in the north.

The Washington Post even cited the letter, which reads that "if the
cease-fire extends to 7 days…checkpoints are set up and all forces are
withdrawn, then the US and Russia will work on stopping the regime planes from
flying and will work together to weaken al-Qaeda in Syria."

While it's obvious that the US
will always support 'their guys' in Aleppo, it's unclear how the US plan is
actually meant to weaken al-Qaeda's Syrian branch, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which
recently rebranded itself and formally disassociated itself from the terrorist
group. More than anything, Ratney's plan feels like an attempt to stall for
time to prevent Aleppo militants from being annihilated.

Whatever the case may be, on Thursday, the Kremlin officially responded
to The Washington Post's article, presidential spokesman Dmitri Peskov saying
that it "doesn't fully correspond to reality."

"The Syrian topic was indeed
discussed in great detail by the two presidents, and in even greater detail by
Lavrov and Kerry," Peskov noted. "There really was a discussion on a
certain document. However, this document has not yet been finalized, as there
are still some unresolved issues remaining, and work continues," he added.

Peskov also emphasized that all points in the possible agreement are
being discussed "in the format of compromise," added that on "a
small number of outstanding issues, compromise has not yet been reached."
What those issues are remains unclear, but their existence indicates that for
one reason or another, on one issue or another, Moscow has rejected
Washington's effort to foist an unfavorable agreement on Russia and on Syria.

At a press conference in Washington on Tuesday, State Department
spokesman Mark Toner hinted at Washington's tough line, noting that "we're
not going to settle for a less than ideal deal."

Toner's comment immediately
prompted a response by veteran Washington press corps journalist Matthew Lee,
who pointed out that successful negotiation requires compromise by its very
definition. "People always settle for less than the ideal; it's the risk
of sacrificing the good for the perfect, where the perfect is impossible,"
Lee said.

That sentiment sums up the essence
of the Syrian negotiations. Because while US officials and media can huff and
puff about the urgency of reaching an agreement, Russia and Syria won't allow
themselves to be swindled into a trap. At the same time, it's worth remembering
throughout that Damascus understands the need for a peaceful resolution to the
conflict more than any other party, since Syrians are the ones who have been
dying in the fighting.

assange

At midday on Friday 5 February, 2016 Julian Assange, John Jones QC, Melinda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson and Baltasar Garzon will be speaking at a press conference at the Frontline Club on the decision made by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on the Assange case.